[mandevil]

Afghanistan was in the middle of a semi-active civil war when the US joined the fray, and by providing large scale air support to Northern Alliance troops on the ground, the situation changed abruptly. Iraq involved multiple US divisions of troops, which took months to get into position to launch a large scale ground invasion. Libya was in the middle of a very active civil war when the US started Operation Odyssey Dawn(1).

All of those cases involved a whole lot of troops on the ground, which is something that I see as notably missing from any plans discussed so far. Outside troops invading seems like a very bad idea, because Iran's population is about that of those other three combined. Operating sufficient outside country ground troops to topple the existing government would quickly lead to friction between civilians and the outside troops, which would almost certainly quickly turn into a revolt of some kind, and fatally undermine any government they attempted to put in place. Also, it would take a very long time for sufficient US force to topple the Iranian government to arrive in the area, and then either launch a D-Day style opposed amphibious assault or operate from one of Iran's neighbors with sea access (2). But because there is no preexisting Iranian civil war, there is no local source of ground troops either.

I don't think we've ever seen a government toppled by external air-strikes alone. The general consensus from research is that being bombed makes citizens support the government more, not weaken their resolve.

1: It didn't lead to change of government, but Operation Allied Force- the NATO bombing of Serbia helped the Kosovo Liberation Army achieve their independence- again air-power supporting troops on the ground to achieve an aim, not air-power alone. What eventually toppled the government of Serbia was the Bulldozer Revolution a year later, with no outside military force involved.

2: Your choices are not going to be good ones. Iraq? Turkey through Kurdistan? Pakistan?

[JumpCrisscross]

> All of those cases involved a whole lot of troops on the ground, which is something that I see as notably missing from any plans discussed so far

Oh absolutely. I compared it to Kabul and Baghdad (and not Libya) for a reason. There is not a mobilised resistance in Iran.

The lack of boots-on-the-ground plans is why I don’t see us teetering towards Iraq 2.0, but instead the U.S. eventually using bunker busters at Fordo and calling it a day. (To the extent we’re seeing the right recipe “liberation” rhetoric, it’s in respect of domestically deploying the military.)

[alephnerd]

^ This

There will be no nation building component. Israeli leadership has no interest, nor does American leadership. And the Gulf States, Turkiye, Russia and China lack the capacity and/or manpower.

Sadly, I feel Iran will most likely teeter into a Libya or Myanmar style Civil War with the Army, IRGC, Basij, and local police at each others throats in the heartland, and ancillary regions like Iranian Azerbaijan, Iranian Kurdistan, Khuzestan+Ilam, and significant portions of Balochistan and Khorasan becoming de facto autonomous and meddled in by regional powers.

[nine_k]

The thing is that the population of Iran is not being bombed, except a few high-ranking military personnel. It's the nuclear facilities, air defense sites, and some electrical power facilities that have been bombed.

A number of meetings / manifestations of expatriate Iranians happened around the world, supporting the Israeli actions. The current regime earned no love from most of the population, it seems; massive anti-government protests happened in Iran for last few years, sometimes lasting for months.

If there is no civil war and no actual troops on the ground, the regime may still be unstable enough, its pillars like IRGC being paper tigers, and willing to defect. It can still fall. An example: the Soviet regime fell in 1991 within a week, basically without any war, and the USSR split into its formal constituent republics, most of which stayed peaceful since then. Another example: the Portuguese regime fell within a week in 1974, with zero shots fired.

[mandevil]

Governments do fall to internal revolt/collapse regularly. I mean, Iran has done so within the memory of most of its senior leadership! They understand this much better than I do- Khamenei himself played a major role in toppling the Shah. Just generally that doesn't happen while being attacked by other countries air-power, which as a general rule makes populations support their governments rather than start marching in the streets against them.

Thanks to historians, we can understand things like the collapse of the USSR better (my favorite English language book- I am sadly monolingual- would be Plokhy's _The Last Empire_) and see the personal and impersonal forces that ended up tearing the country apart, and doubtless some of those are present in Iran right now. But I personally would not bet on these strikes helping to topple the existing government.

[alephnerd]

I tend to disagree. Iran was already on the verge of a succession crisis, as Khamenei only rose to power by viciously putting down Khomeini's allies after his passing, and the inter-service rivalry between the Army (leaning towards reformers like Khomeini's grandson), IRGC (autonomous), and the Basij (lead by Khamenei's son). This is the forcing function.

Iran had a very violent succession crisis in the late 80s-early 90s, but the titans of the revolution and rallying behind the flag due to the Iran-Iraq war helped ensure some base amount of unity.

There is a vacuum in Iran's elite, as most of the upper and mid-level echelons are those who solidified their fiefdoms in the 1990s.

[GuinansEyebrows]

> The thing is that the population of Iran is not being bombed, except a few high-ranking military personnel. It's the nuclear facilities, air defense sites, and some electrical power facilities that have been bombed.

this is not true. they bombed residential buildings in the capital city of the country. children have died in these bombings.